Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

A Message of Electability

By Christine Hauser October 19, 2007 3:38 pmOctober 19, 2007 3:38 pm

The John Edwards campaign continued today to roll out its message of electability, a theme they have been sounding all week with a tour to farms and small towns in remote parts of rural Iowa and with the help of Democratic legislators from red and battleground states.

Today’s message was conveyed in a conference call with reporters and state legislators from North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Oregon, Maine and Indiana. The campaign suggested that Mr. Edwards was a less risky candidate with a broader appeal across race, class, gender and geographical lines than his main Democratic rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.

Texas State Representative Gamet Coleman said he supported Mr. Edwards because he has the policies needed to address issues affecting a range of income levels, and across racial and gender lines.“As an African American everyone would suspect that I support Obama,” Mr. Coleman said.

Other legislators said that they believed Mr. Edwards would help the party regain its stature and state seats.

Connie Johnson, House minority whip in Missouri, also noted that she was African American, and said that as a legislator, it was important to have a candidate who “has appeal outside of the show-me states.”

She said that in 1979 there were 46 Republicans and 117 Democrats in the House but this year there are 92 Republicans and 71 Democrats. “We are hanging on by a thread.”

“If we don’t have a good person at the top of the ticket, someone who can help stop the hemorrhaging in Missouri, we will go red,” Ms. Johnson said. “If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri we can write it off. We will not regain the majority.”

Legislators said they were supporting Mr. Edwards because of his populist message, and his health care proposal and policies addressing poverty and rural issues resonated in red states like North Dakota and Indiana.

David Bonior, the campaign manager, said that the electability push translates into the campaign’s ground game by placing a “huge emphasis” on rural activity, such as the two-day tour of rural Iowa that Mr. Edwards just completed, where people can “look him in the eye.”

During the tour across northern Iowa, which ended Wednesday, Mr. Edwards pressed his image as a populist, speaking from hog farms, schools and tool sheds.

In those settings, he was joined by Ben Jones, the former actor who played “Cooter” in the “Dukes of Hazzard” television show.

What Edwards is really saying here is, “Vote for me, the white guy. I’m not black like Obama or female like Hillary, so people might vote for me.”
What Edwards is missing is a few things:
1. Clinton and Obama ARE electable and getting more support than he is.
2. Even if the impossible happened and Edwards was the nominee, the GOP would massacre him in the general election. He doesn’t match up well against the attack dogs like Thompson, Giuliani and McCain. Edwards makes them all look like stronger leaders. He’s just too weak looking.

According to recent SurveyUSA polling, in four key, swing states that Kerry lost in 2004 – IA, MO, OH & VA – Edwards beat the top three Republicans – Giuliani, Romney & Thompson – by a combined average of over 12 points! HRC maintains a thin plurality of less than half of Edwards’ number, and Obama squeaks by a combined average of less than 3%.

How nice to know that Edwards’ campaign is now employing the strategy I had recommended a few months ago about raising the general electability issue, especially in the South (not to imply that he has read my advice and is following it). But I think his campaign strategy had a wrong foundation for success. His “two Americas” theme would resonate more if the economy is in depression or recession. While I believe we’re heading towards it (I think we’ll hit recession in the middle of next year), for now, many Americans don’t have an issue with the economy (at least their perception of it or how their lives are affected anyway). It’s when you see the upper middle class starting to lose their jobs (massive lay off at corporate levels) that his “two Americans” theme will resonate with the economically moderate voters. A noble theme, but bad timing. And I know I raised the ire of some of you before but I still think Edwards would have been more successful had his platform been more moderate (rather than to the “left” of Hillary and Obama). I think “left” people are more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American than moderates; and Edwards could have locked in many of the moderate votes by being white and being moderate on economically/foreign policy. I mean, there’s a reason why the only Democratic candidates we have had recently are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – a white Southern moderate men. But Edwards wanted to test out a different recipe for success. While he may have done so for noble reasons, I think that’s going to cost him. And even if he gets the Democratic nomination, I don’t know how he plans to fight the Republican machine in the general election without getting corporate backing. Being noble doesn’t get you very far these days…

OK, let’s forget about who would make the best president, and focus on who has the best chance of being elected in the general election.

Polls show high negative opinions of Hillary, much higher than the others, so there is worry that she will mobilize opposition, turn off Independents and leftleaning Dems, and can’t carry any southern states.
The Jena 6 incident shows that racism is a huge problem in the US, and I am concerned that Barack’s nomination will wind up as referendum on race relations and the intellectual maturity of the electorate in the general election.

Maybe the Iowa Caucus process will lead to an Edwards/Obama ticket.

The 2008 General Election is the Democrats’ to lose. Sentiment against this Republican administration is huge, and they just have to find a good messenger to oppose the status quo, since none of the Republicans (except Ron Paul) are offering anything substantially different.

First of all, polls are backwards-looking. Anyone who thinks that the polls right now can accurately tell you what people will be thinking in November 2008, is misguided. The only thing the polls can do, in terms of the matchups against the GOP candidates, is allow us to compare Democrats to Democrats in terms of how each Democrat stacks up against the Republicans, AS LONG AS you factor in variables like media attention, money, familiarity, projection (voters thinking they know Clinton when they don’t), etc. John Edwards has less money, less favorable television media, less familiarity, less affection from Democrats than Hillary Clinton does, less alliances, and so on, yet he still does better than her AGAINST REPUBLICANS in most polls. That shows you he would be a stronger candidate than she would, but the polls still don’t tell us what would happen in November 2008. In other words, because John Edwards can still outperform Hillary Clinton against most Republicans despite having all going for her that she does, that indicates that he would be stronger than she would, but the matchups between him and the GOP wouldn’t necessarily be the same in November 2008. They could be closer or they could be a wider margin. Other than McCain and Giuliani, most people don’t know much about the GOP field, and the Democratic race has received a lot more attention than the GOP primary.

You can’t just “look at” poll numbers. You have to look at the polls in context.

Secondly, every nominee in the history of this country has been a “white male,” and all of those “white males” HAVE NOT been elected, so anyone who thinks that John Edwards is focusing on gender and race, is an idiot.

John Edwards is stressing the fact that HE HAS RUN AND WON A STATEWIDE ELECTION IN THE SOUTH. It’s something the Clinton and Obama folks don’t want him to talk about, so they try and throw out charges of racism or sexism.

Get a brain.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both run in blue states against PUSHOVER CANDIDATES like Alan Keyes. Hillary Clinton’s two opponents in NY were such a joke that most people can’t even tell you who she ran against in 2000 or 2004.

John Edwards has actually won a “STATEWIDE RACE” — Presidential candidates have to win states to get electoral votes — against the Jesse Helms political machine…IN THE SOUTH…in the 1990s, when Democrats were losing everything in the House and Senate, thanks in part to the Clintons rolling over to the Gingrich Republicans. The Clintons looked out for the Clintons, while the other Democrats lost the House and Senate. If you are a triangulator like the Clintons were, it really doesn’t matter which party controls Congress, “you” blend in.

That’s what has worked for Democrats in recent years in Presidential elections, in real life, as much as it may anger some northeast Democrats. The southern accent creates a sense of “moderation.” Other Democrats run on a progressive platform, like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester both did in red state Montana, where both won.

John Edwards is 1) a southerner who will campaign everywhere and 2) running on a progressive/populist platform just like other Democrats and politicians do in red states and red districts (Bernie Sanders).

It is an ignorant cop-out to claim that Edwards is making this about gender and race.

No, YOU (George), are making it about gender and race because you don’t have the mental capacity to look deeper than gender and race. So, go on back to myDD and post some stupid poll numbers.

I think that electability is a vitally important question. How can we forget the last two general elections? We have to assume that voter intimidation and possible fraud will occur. In order to win the presidency, the Democrats will need far more than a close majority.

I am much more comfortable that John Edwards will inspire widespread turn-out and that voters will not lose heart in the voting booth thinking that all politicians are alike (H. Clinton) or maybe we don’t know Obama well enough. I don’t think this is racism or even fear of racism. I do think that those who believe H. Clinton can be elected are living in a dream world. Conservatives are already passing out buttons saying don’t elect another Clinton.

John Edwards is confident and strong and amazingly palatable for such a liberal guy.

It is obvious who most of you are supporting. I will support whomever the Dem nominee is, but it is Naive and almost ignorant to suggest that Hillary Clinton is the most electable Democrat or Barack Obama for that matter.

John Edwards faced the republican machine when he ran for Senate in NC, and in 2004 when he was campaigning with one arm behind his back working for the inept Kerry Campaign.

When he was in the courtroom standing against the best corporate lawyers money can buy, the lesson the opposing lawyers learned applies more than ever today.

He’s electable against any Republican. The one who is not electable against any Republican is Hillary Clinton. She’s on too many sides of too many issues. In the general if she comes on that she’s really tough on the war, the Reps will slaughter her for her hypocracy in the primaries. If she tries to be tougher than Guiliani, for example, who is a rabid skunk, the people who want us out of this war will simply stay home.

It is funny that Edward sees himself as most electable in the pack because he is a white southerner. The taste of the pudding is in the eating. We know that Edward was once a vice presidential candidate. One of the reasons he was chosen was to help win one or two southern states. Did Edward win his own State, no.

Electability issue worked in favor of John Kerry against Gov. Dean because of the war in Iraq as the former was a decorated Vietnam hero. It worked because of national security factor. But Edward’s electability propaganda is based on sexism and racism. This is what the South has against a woman or black candidate for the office of the president.

Edward should hide his face in utter shame. When he had opportunity to debate Dick Cheney, he called out Cheney’s daughter who was an open lesbian and inserted her in a subject that has no bearing to the debate. Apparently, Edward was trying to show how hypocritical Dick Cheney was as a conservative republican who oppose gays and lesbians but has no qualms about his daughter being one. How tacky that was. If the tape of that incident were to be played over and over, people will be repulsed. Edward is seen as a classic demagogue who lives an opulent lifestyle but goes to the masses to claim that he wants to fight for them. Talk about Jimmy Swaggart who preaches monogamy during the day but becomes Johnny at night soliciting prostitutes. Edward is a damaged good who wants to be the last man that leaves the bar at midnight.

This is the best exchange I’ve read here in a long time. It is a given that electability is the “Dean Scream” issue for 2008. Welcome to the discussion.

I don’t rule our Edwards as a potential winner (over Hillary or Obama) but he still is still a smooth talking nice young (inexperienced) guy. His stands on health care and energy are enough to KO him in a nationwide race against the pros. For instance, it was his “heroic?” huge settlements in court that added many millions to our health care costs. (You do the math. His wealth= (tens of Million$) was his cut of the settlements of (hundreds of million$) which after insurance companies added their (fear factor and huge profits) put Health provider’s insurance premiums through the roof divided by all of us equals huge cost.

Governor Bill Richardson is a guy who the West will elect in 2008 because he will take New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, maybe Texas, and the North west.

Will the true blue NE still vote for him? Sure will! Will California still support him? Absolutely! He gives nothing up and brings a lot to the table.

Now that truth is spilling about the ills of Bill Clinton (outsourcing/privatizing the military), outsourcing jobs in general, NAFTA, three strikes, failing welfare reform (criminalizing young black men, causing 70% black babies to be born in illegitimacy, while not realizing the loophole created for women to have babies out of wedlock), don’t ask-don’t tail (fixed by Colin Powell in the military) while infiltrating in to corporate America, how could anyone conceive of even thinking about electing Mrs Clinton who voted for this Iraqi War(without reading the NIE), voted for the beginning of war with Iran, she not only unqualified to be a president, she should be fired as the NY Senator.

I for one am for an Obama/Edwards combination, and to be frank, I really don’t give a damn which one does what, they could heal the country together as a team. Obama will get the progressive vote, and Edwards has recognition as a southerner could assist in sewing up the southern vote.

I am quietly hoping Edwards will place in the important states in the beginning of the primaries, and I know Obama will do well, although the polls show different.

Boy, there are a lot of naysayers out there. Of course John Edwards should bring up her elect ability, because she’s not elect able. He should also keep hammering her on her Iran vote and the way she nuanced her answer about the war. However, John Edwards shouldn’t have done that either. I understand he was saying we will be there for continuing our relationship after the exit of our combat troops. But he should have said he will have our combat troops out by the end of his first term!! He will decide whether we leave diplomatic personnel in Iraq and the troops to protect them depending on the circumstances after we remove out troops. I firmly believe John Edwards will win the General election if the democrats come to their senses. If not my family will either stay home or vote Republican. I can’t tell you how many people that have told me the same thing. I’ll take any bets on this one!

I completely agree with my husband’s remarks…and yes I can think for myself. Women are not necessarily going to jump on Clinton’s campaign just because she’s a women. Most of my women friends say they simply don’t like her and I agree with them too.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…